Well, no one finds fault in exquisite products better than you do. So which of the following feats of engineering do you think deserves the most ire and criticism? The fact that Core M can score 50k in 3DMark Icestorm, or the fact that it can do it in a 7mm thick fanless tablet? Or that they did it in 1.3B transistors, while it took Apple ~2B to deliver only about half of the performance? Damn those engineers for a very lousy and underwhelming 3x perf/watt improvement!!! DavidA2 wanted more! Whaaa!!!
It's been that way... up until now. Broadwell is a new architecture on a new process, with an affordable 82 mm2 die size. They can ramp the hell out of that next year, and make plenty of margin on 2-in-1 designs selling for $499 and above.
Seems Intel's criteria for funding something to completion is to have it be as profitable as their Core processor business. And since the Core business is unique in the industry on how much money it makes, it's no surprise that everything else fails to live up to it. Intel will always end up going back to the Core business, as long as it makes more money than anything else - and for a long time in the future - it will continue to do so.
If you look at a composite score "CPU + GPU" it is easier to have a high score in the GPU-part in a given power envelope.
Having an unbalanced system is not something we should look after. Surfing experience is definetly better with a quadcore baytrail than with a snapdragon 801.